Öğretmenlerin Web 2.0 Araçları Yetkinliği Mesleki Motivasyonlarını Geliştiriyor mu?

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı öğretmenlerin Web 2.0 araçlarını kullanma yeterlilikleri ile mesleki motivasyonları arasındaki ilişkiyi araştırmaktır. Ayrıca bu değişkenlerin çeşitli sosyo-demografik değişkenlere göre farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığı da incelenmiştir. Çalışmada ilişkisel tarama modeli kullanılmıştır. Çalışma Türkiye'nin çeşitli illerinde farklı okul türlerinde ve öğretmenlik alanlarında çalışan 446 öğretmen ile yürütülmüştür. Sonuçlara göre öğretmenlik deneyimi arttıkça Web 2.0 araçlarını kullanma yeterlilikleri azalırken, mesleki motivasyon farklılaşmamıştır. Öğretmenlerin mesleki motivasyonu ve Web 2.0 kullanım yeterlilikleri arasında cinsiyete ve okul türüne göre fark bulunmamıştır. Ayrıca mesleki motivasyon tüm öğretmenlik alanlarında benzerken, Bilişim Teknolojileri öğretmenlerinde Web 2.0 kullanım yeterliliği daha yüksektir. Kırsalda çalışan öğretmenlerin mesleki motivasyonu, kentsel okullarda çalışan öğretmenlerden daha yüksektir. Öğretmenlerin mesleki motivasyonu ile Web 2.0 araçlarını kullanma yeterlilikleri arasında pozitif ilişki bulunmuştur. Son olarak, regresyon analizi, öğretmenlerin Web 2.0 araçlarını kullanma yeterliliklerinin mesleki motivasyonlarını anlamlı şekilde yordadığını göstermiştir.

Does Teachers' Web 2.0 Tools Competence Improve Their Professional Motivation?

Abstract

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between teachers' competence in using Web 2.0 tools and their professional motivation. We also examined whether these variables differed by socio-demographic characteristics. A correlational survey model was used in this study. This study was conducted with 446 teachers from various provinces in Türkiye, working in different school types and teaching fields. The results showed that as teaching experience increased, competence in using Web 2.0 tools decreased, while professional motivation did not differ. No differences were found in teachers' professional motivation or Web 2.0 usage competence by gender or school type. Additionally, professional motivation was similar across all teaching fields, while Web 2.0 usage competence was higher among Information Technology teachers. Teachers' professional motivation was higher in rural schools than in urban schools. A positive relationship was found between teachers' professional motivation and their competence levels in using Web 2.0 tools. Finally, the regression analysis showed that teachers' competence in Web 2.0 tools significantly predicted their professional motivation.

Keywords

• Web 2.0 tools
• Teacher motivation
• Professional motivation
• Digital tools
• Digital competence

References

1. Abdelmalak, M. M. M. (2015). Web 2.0 technologies and building online learning communities: Students' perspectives. Online Learning, 19(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v19i2.413
2. Abkarin, N. A. (2021). The analysis of teachers’ professional competence in utilizing information and communication technology. ELT Forum: Journal of English Language Teaching, 10(2), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.15294/elt.v10i2.40462
3. Adcock, L., & Bolick, C. (2011). Web 2.0 tools and the evolving pedagogy of teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11(2), 223–236.
4. Akbaş, S., & Yünkül, E. (2024). Investigation of classroom teachers' use of Web 2.0 Tools in accordance with teachers' opinions. MANAS Journal of Social Studies, 13(1), 93-110. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.1287016
5. Akman, E., & Durgun, B. (2022). Examination of teachers' professional motivation and technostress levels. Firat University Journal of Social Sciences, 32(2), 487–500. https://doi.org/10.18069/firatsbed.1025152
6. Aksoy, O. (2024). The relationship between teachers' Web 2.0 tools usage competency levels and self-efficacy perceptions. Anadolu University Journal of Education Faculty, 8(3), 849–865. https://doi.org/10.34056/aujef.1398097
7. Alhassan, R. (2017). Exploring the relationship between Web 2.0 tools' self-efficacy and teachers' use of these tools in their teaching. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(4), 217–228. http://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n4p217
8. Arslantaş, H. İ., Tösten, R., & Marakçı, D. B. (2018). Professional motivation elements of high school teachers: a mixed-method study. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 14(3), 880-895. https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.485161

9. Aslan Efe, H., & Baysal, Y. E. (2017). Analysis of the relationship between science teachers’ motivation towards using educational technology and their self regulation strategies. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 16(63), 1391–1399. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.308979
10. Atalmış, S., & Şimşek, G. (2022). Social studies and science teachers’ abilities to use Web 2.0 tools. Journal of Innovative Research in Social Studies, 5(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.47503/jirss.1039178 Atkinson, E. S. (2000). An investigation into the relationship between teacher motivation and pupil motivation. Educational Psychology, 20(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/014434100110371
11. Atzori, L., Iera, A., & Morabito, G. (2010). The Internet of Things: A survey. Computer Networks, 54(15), 2787–2805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2010.05.010
12. Babacan, N. (2021). The effects of use of Plickers on the vocabulary learning motivation, anxiety and achievement in EFL classes (Thesis no. 669633) [Master's thesis, Van Yüzüncü Yıl University]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/
13. Balcı, A. (2011). Etkili okul ve okul geliştirme: Kuram uygulama ve araştırma [Effective school and school development: Theory, practice and research]. Pegem A Publishing.
14. Baturay, M. H. (2007). Effects of web-based multimedia annotated vocabulary learning in context model on foreign language vocabulary retention of intermediate level English language learners (Thesis no. 201832) [PhD thesis, Middle East Technical University]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/
15. Bennett, S., Bishop, A., Dalgarno, B., Waycott, J., & Kennedy, G. (2012). Implementing Web 2.0 technologies in higher education: A collective case study. Computers & Education, 59(2), 524–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.022
16. Can, M. İ., Onbaşılı, Ü. İ., & Yalman, F. E. (2024). How competent are the classroom teachers in using Web 2.0 tools? Sample of science course. Buca Faculty of Education Journal, 59, 597–625. https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1392508
17. Copriady, J. (2015). Self-motivation as a mediator for teachers’ readiness in applying ICT in teaching and learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 176, 699–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.529
18. Çelenk, G., & Tatlı, Z. (2022). The effect of Web 2.0 supported assessment and evaluation training on questions developed by pre-service teachers. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 55(2), 423-448. https://doi.org/10.30964/auebfd.1020589
19. Çelik, T. (2021a). Web 2.0 Tools Usage Competence Scale development study. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 51, 449–478. https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.700181
20. Çelik, T. (2021b). Examining formative evaluation experiences of prospective social studies teachers using Web 2.0 applications. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 50(231), 173-198. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.713075
21. Dagiene, V., & Kurilovas, E. (2010). Web 2.0 technologies and applications in the best practice networks and communities. Informatics in Education, 9(2), 185-197.
22. Demir, O. (2023). An analysis of the relationship between professional autonomy and professional motivation of teachers. Education and Science, 48(213), 231–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2023.11700
23. Dogan, B., Gogus, A. (2025). The effect of the ‘instructional technologies’ course on the competencies of teacher candidates in using Web 2.0 tools: The case of early childhood education program. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-025-09842-w
24. Dönmez Usta, N. D., Güntepe, E. T., & Durukan, Ü. G. (2020). Competencies of prospective teachers be able to integrate into Web 2.0 technologies to learning environment. Gümüşhane University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 11(2), 519-529.
25. Duru, F., & Arslan, A. (2022). Examining primary school teachers’ motivation to be a teacher, self-efficiency beliefs, innovativeness and job satisfaction. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 51(235), 2133-2162. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.917330
26. Eçen, G. (2022). Instructor’s motivation for pursuing a teaching profession and their life-long learning inclination (Thesis no. 775627) [Master's thesis, Sakarya University]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/
27. Elmas, R., Demirdöğen, B., & Geban, Ö. (2011). Preservice chemistry teachers’ images about science teaching in their future classrooms. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 40, 164-175.
28. Ertürk, R. (2016). Work motivation of teachers. Journal of Education, Theory and Practical Research, 2(3), 1–15.
29. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill.
30. Gedemen, A., & Göksu, İ. (2023). Ortaokul İngilizce öğreniminde vodcast kullanımı: Dil yeterliğine ve konuşma kaygısına etkisi [Using vodcast in secondary school English learning: Effect on language proficiency and speaking anxiety]. Science, Education, Art and Technology Journal, 7(2), 108-125.
31. Göksu, İ., & Bolat, Y. İ. (2020). Teknoloji kullanımı Türkiye'de öğrencilerin akademik başarılarını etkiliyor mu? Bir meta-analiz çalışması [Does using technology affect students’ academic achievement in Turkey? A meta-analysis]. Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 10(1), 138-176. https://doi.org/10.17943/etku.614505
32. Göksu, İ., & Koçak, Ö. (2020). Öğretmen adaylarının öğretim teknolojilerine yönelik metaforik algıları [The metaphoric perceptions of pre-service teachers towards instructional technology]. Journal of Instructional Technologies and Teacher Education, 9(2), 125-143.
33. Göloğlu Demir, C., Demir, E., & Bolat, Y. (2017). The relationship between characteristics of primary school teachers and their motivations. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 14(37), 73-87.
34. Grosseck, G., & Holotescu, C. (2008, April). Can we use Twitter for educational activities? In 4th International Scientific Conference, eLearning and Software for Education, Bucharest, Romania.
35. Guillén-Gámez, F. D., Lugones, A., & Mayorga-Fernández, M. J. (2019). ICT use by pre-service foreign languages teachers according to gender, age and motivation. Cogent Education, 6(1), Article 1574693. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1574693
36. Gündüzalp, C. (2021). The effect of activities based on Web 2.0 tools on students' reflective and critical thinking and problem solving skills in an online lesson. e-Kafkas Journal of Educational Research, 8(2), 136-156. https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.936736
37. İlğan, A. & Ceviz, H. (2019). The relationship between the perception of the society related to teaching profession and teachers’ professional motivation according to teachers’ view. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 25(2), 285-338.
38. Jarrett, K. (2008). Interactivity is Evil! A critical investigation of Web 2.0. First Monday, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v13i3.2140
39. Joubert, M., & Wishart, J. (2012). Participatory practices: Lessons learnt from two initiatives using online digital technologies to build knowledge. Computers & Education, 59(1), 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.024
40. Kadioğlu Ateş, H., & Yilmaz, P. (2018). Investigation of the work motivation levels of primary school teachers. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(3), 184-196. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v6i3.2948
41. Karabağ Köse, E., Karataş, E., Küçükçene, M., Taş, A. (2021). Validity and reliability study of Teacher Professional Motivation Scale: A comparison of online and paper-pencil administration. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 51, 479-498. https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.707619
42. Karaköse, T., Demirkol, M., Yirci, R., Polat, H., Özdemir, T. Y., & Tülübaş, T. (2023). A conversation with ChatGPT about digital leadership and technology integration: comparative analysis based on human-AI collaboration. Administrative Sciences, 13(7), Article 157. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13070157
43. Karakuyu, Y., & Karakuyu, A. (2016). The contribution of motivation and self-efficacy on pre-service primary school teachers' Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK). Usak University Journal of Educational Research, 2(1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.29065/usakead.232415
44. Keçeci, G., Yıldız, S., Yıldırım, P., Alan, B., & Zengin, F. (2023). The effect of science teachers’ use of innovative instructional technology tools in climate change, biodiversity and environment on Web 2.0 competencies. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 13(3), 370-379. https://doi.org/10.5961/higheredusci.1244125
45. Keskin, M. A., & Uğraş, S. (2022). Research of physical education and sports teachers’ self-efficacy in using Web 2.0 tools in the duration of COVID-19. Eurasian Research in Sport Science, 7(2), 69-89. https://doi.org/10.29228/ERISS.22
46. Kim, D., & Gilman, D. A. (2008). Effects of text, audio, and graphic aids in multimedia instruction for vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 114–126.
47. Majid, N. A. (2014). Integration of Web 2.0 tools in learning a programming course. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(4), 88–94.
48. Moon, J. A. (2006). Learning journals: A handbook for reflective practice and professional development. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203969212
49. Moore-Hayes, C. (2011). Technology integration preparedness and its influence on teacher-efficacy. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 37(3), 1-15.
50. Morgan, L. (2012). Generation Y, learner autonomy and the potential of Web 2.0 tools. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 29(3), 166–176. https://doi.org/10.1108/10650741211243184
51. Mutlu, Z. (2021). Examination of the Relationship Between Teachers' Motivations and Levels of Competency. (Thesis no. 695292) [Master’s thesis, Gaziantep University]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/
52. Needleman, M. (2007). Web 2.0/Lib 2.0-What is It? (If it’s anything at all). Serials Review, 33(3), 202–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2007.10765123
53. Ocak, G., Adalıoğlu, C., & Yurtseven, R. (2023). Examination of the relationship between perceptions of self-efficiency and motivation levels of the special education teachers. Kırklareli University Journal of Social Sciences, 7(1), 39-70. https://doi.org/10.47140/kusbder.1245023
54. Onbasilli, Ü. I. (2020). The effects of science teaching practice supported with Web 2.0 tools on prospective elementary school teachers' self-efficacy beliefs. International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(2), 91–110.
55. Özmen, F., Aküzüm, C., Sünkür, M., & Baysal, N. (2012). Functionality of social networks in educational settings. e-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 7(2), 496-506.
56. Rudman, R., & Bruwer, R. (2016). Defining Web 3.0: Opportunities and challenges. The Electronic Library, 34(1), 132-154. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-08-2014-0140
57. Recepoğlu, E. (2013). Analyzing job motivation of teachers in terms of different variables. Kastamonu Education Journal, 21(2), 575-588.
58. Remmi, F., & Hashim, H. (2021). Primary school teachers’ usage and perception of online formative assessment tools in language assessment. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 10(1), 290–303. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v10-i1/8846
59. Robertson, S. N., Humphrey, S. M., & Steele, J. P. (2019). Using technology tools for formative assessments. Journal of Educators Online, 16(2), n2.
60. Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2014). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Pearson Education.
61. Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Kaplan, H. (2007). Autonomous motivation for teaching: how self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 761–774. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.761
62. Russell, J., & Sorge, D. (1999). Training facilitators to enhance technology integration. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 13(4), 6–9.
63. Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). An investigation of the factors that influence preservice teachers’ intentions and integration of Web 2.0 tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64, 37–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9410-9
64. Selvi, K. (2022). Examination of teacher's opinions on the use of Web 2.0 tools in teaching Turkish to foreigners in terms of various variables (Thesis no. 759905) [Master’s thesis, Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/
65. Sercanoğlu Öden, M., Bolat, Y. İ., & Goksu, İ. (2021). Kahoot! as a gamification tool in vocational education: More positive attitude, motivation and less anxiety in EFL. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 9(18), 682-701. https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.924882
66. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2017). Motivated for teaching? Associations with school goal structure, teacher self-efficacy, job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 152-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.006
67. Solhi Andarab, M. (2019). Learning vocabulary through collocating on Quizlet. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(4), 980–985. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.070409
68. Süzer, E. (2022). Examining teachers' digital competency levels according to various variables (Thesis no. 776903) [Master’s thesis, Süleyman Demirel University]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/
69. Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.
70. Taş, A., & Selvitopu, A. (2020). An examination of job satisfaction and occupational motivation levels of high school teachers. Bayburt Journal of Faculty of Education, 15(29), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.35675/befdergi.426989
71. Teo, T., Sang, G., Mei, B., & Hoi, C. K. W. (2019). Investigating pre-service teachers’ acceptance of Web 2.0 technologies in their future teaching: a Chinese perspective. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(4), 530–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1489290
72. Tian, J., Hashemifardnia, A. & Akhter, S. (2025). Exploring the intersections between digital competence with job motivation and job efficacy in EFL teachers: insights from achievement goal theory. BMC Psychol, 13, Article 1053 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-03428-y
73. Tondeur, J., Pareja Roblin, N., van Braak, J., Voogt, J., & Prestridge, S. (2016). Preparing beginning teachers for technology integration in education: ready for take-off? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(2), 157–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2016.1193556
74. Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Education Technology Research & Development, 65, 555–575 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2
75. Türkben, T., & Alptekin, E. (2023). Turkish teachers’ competence in creating digital stories with Web 2.0 tools. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 52(238), 909-932. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.1090534 Vatansever Bayraktar, H., & Akın, E. (2019). Investigation of motivation levels of primary school teachers. Eurasian Academy of Sciences Social Science Journal, 24, 37-63.
76. Vaughan, N. (2010). Student engagement and Web 2.0: What’s the connection? Education Canada, 50(2), 52–55.
77. Vermote, B., Aelterman, N., Beyers, W., Aper, L., Buysschaert, F., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2020). The role of teachers’ motivation and mindsets in predicting a (de)motivating teaching style in higher education: a circumplex approach. Motivation and Emotion, 44, 270–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-020-09827-5
78. Virkus, S. (2008). Use of Web 2.0 technologies in LIS education: Experiences at Tallinn University, Estonia. Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems, 42(3), 262–274. https://doi.org/10.1108/00330330810892677
79. Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. (2006). Implementing computer technologies: teachers’ perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1). 173–207.
80. Yaşar Sağlık, Z., & Yıldız, M. (2021). A systematic review of studies on the use of Web 2.0 tools in language teaching in Turkey. Journal of Research in Education and Society, 8(2), 418-442. https://doi.org/10.51725/etad.1011687
81. Yazıcı, H. (2009). Teaching profession sources of motivation and basic attitudes: A theoretical overview. Kastamonu Education Journal, 17(1), 33–46.
82. Yermeydan Uğur, B. (2017). Investigation of the factors affecting the faculty of education instructors’ Web 2.0 usage in education in the context of unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (Thesis no. 461543) [PhD thesis, Gazi University]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/
83. Yılmaz, A. (2022). The relationship between teachers' technological competencies and professional motivation (Thesis no. 769727) [Master’s thesis, Gazi University]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/
84. Yiğiter, M. S. (2019). The effect of teachers’ use of technology on their professional motivations: Cankaya district case (Thesis no. 713581) [PhD thesis, Hacı Bayram Veli University]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/
85. Zainuddin, Z., Shujahat, M., Haruna, H., & Chu, S. K. W. (2020). The role of gamified e-quizzes on student learning and engagement: An interactive gamification solution for a formative assessment system. Computers & Education, 145, Article 103729, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103729